TC1-20055

TC1-20055

The appeal is dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants failed to demonstrate that the agents of persecution had the means or motivation to locate them in the proposed IFAs (Anuradhapura or Batticaloa), most proffered new evidence was not credible and inadmissible (except the town council list), and relocation to the IFAs would not be unreasonable; therefore the RPD correctly found the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96–97 of IRPA.

Citation
TC1-20055
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spousal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons and Decision Dated 21 March 2022)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and New Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Burden of Proof, Police Corruption, Risk to Minors, Oral Hearing Requests
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and New Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Burden of Proof Police Corruption +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spousal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellants

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons and Decision Dated 21 March 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) existed in Anuradhapura or Batticaloa
  2. 2 Whether the agents of persecution had the means and motivation to locate the appellants in the IFAs
  3. 3 Whether new evidence met statutory thresholds for admission and was credible and relevant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on a balance of probabilities, the appellants failed to demonstrate that the agents of persecution had the means or motivation to locate them in the proposed IFAs (Anuradhapura or Batticaloa), most proffered new evidence was not credible and inadmissible (except the town council list), and relocation to the IFAs would not be unreasonable; therefore the RPD correctly found the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96–97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated November 4, 2021 confirmed.
  • New evidence: town council membership list admitted; two testimonial letters rejected as not credible and inadmissible.